Projected Smoking-Related Deaths Among U.S. Youth: A 2000 Update Ellen J. Hahn, DNS, RN Mary Kay Rayens, PhD Frank J. Chaloupka, PhD Chizimuzo T.C. Okoli, BSN, RN Jun Yang, MS May 2002 Research Paper Series, No. 22 ImpacTeen is part of the Bridging the Gap Initiative: Research Informing Practice for Healthy Youth Behavior, supported by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and administered by the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Projected Smoking-Related Deaths Among U.S. Youth: A 2000 Update Ellen J. Hahn University of Kentucky College of Nursing and School of Public Health, College of Medicine Mary Kay Rayens University of Kentucky College of Nursing and School of Public Health and Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, College of Medicine Frank J. Chaloupka University of Illinois at Chicago and NBER Chizimuzo T.C. Okoli University of Kentucky College of Nursing Jun Yang Department of Cancer Prevention, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Roswell Park Cancer Institute May 2002 2
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge research support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to Ellen J. Hahn as a 2000 Fellow through the Developing Leadership in Reducing Substance Abuse Program, to Jun Yang through the Bridging the Gap Program, and to Frank J. Chaloupka through both programs. The views in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Copyright 2002 University of Illinois at Chicago. 3
Abstract: This paper projects the long term consequences of the rise in youth smoking in the 1990s by updating the state estimates for projected smoking-related deaths among youth in the U.S. using information from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2000 and the U.S. Census 2000. This analysis is similar to that from an earlier study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office on Smoking and Health (MMWR, 45[44], November 8, 1996). The 1996 analysis used young adult smoking prevalence data from 1994 and 1995; whereas, the analysis presented here represents smoking prevalence data from 2000. The overall number of potential future smoking-attributable deaths among persons aged 0-17 years in 2000 was 6,407,119 for the U.S., up from an estimated 5 million in 1995. Compared with the 1995 estimates, every state except Arizona shows increases in projected smoking-related deaths among youth for 2000. This upsurge is attributable to both increases in smoking prevalence among young adults and population aged 0-17 years from 1995 to 2000. The increase in smoking prevalence among young adults was statistically significant in nine states including Alabama, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont. With increasing attention and funding for comprehensive, research-based tobacco control programs in the U.S., one would expect smoking rates to decline over time, resulting in a reduction in projected smoking-related deaths among youth. The analysis reported here does not yet reflect this trend. This study clearly demonstrates that based on recent smoking patterns, there will continue to be a huge public health toll from tobacco. The results from this new analysis will be useful to states as they determine the overall public health benefits from increasing the state excise tax and consider funding for comprehensive tobacco control programs. 4
I. Introduction Cigarette smoking among adolescents increased during the 1990s, peaked during the mid-1990s, and then began a gradual decline (Johnston, O Malley, & Bachman, 2002). It was estimated that 5 million persons who were aged 0-17 years in 1995 would die prematurely from a smoking-related illness (CDC, 1996). Since this estimate was based on 1994 and 1995 smoking prevalence data, it does not adequately reflect the increase in youth smoking in the mid-1990s. The purpose of this paper is to project the long term consequences of the rise in youth smoking in the 1990s by updating the state estimates for projected smoking-related deaths among youth in the U.S. using information from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2000 and the U.S. Census 2000. This analysis is similar to that from an earlier study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Office on Smoking and Health (MMWR, 45[44], November 8, 1996). II. Methods State estimates for projected smoking-related deaths among youth in the U.S. were calculated using (a) the state prevalence of current smoking among adults aged 18-30 years in 2000; (b) the number of persons aged 0-17 years in each state in 2000; and (c) the probability of smoking-attributable mortality. State-specific data on the prevalence of current smoking among adults aged 18-30 years in all 50 states and the District of Columbia were obtained from the BRFSS for 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/brfss/). Current smoking among adults age 18-30 years was defined as those who reported having smoked 100 cigarettes during their lifetimes and who reported smoking during the past 30 days. In the earlier analysis (CDC, 1996), the prevalence of smoking among adults 5
aged 18-30 years for each state was averaged for 1994 and 1995 (with a few exceptions) to estimate the future prevalence of smoking during early adulthood for the birth cohorts aged 0-17 years. In this analysis, the prevalence of smoking among 18 to 30 year olds in 2000 was employed. One year of smoking prevalence data vs. pooling 1999 and 2000 data was used since the state estimates are based on representative samples each year. The prevalence of cigarette use among young adults was compared between 1994-1995 and 2000 for each state by considering the 95% confidence intervals for these parameters. States whose confidence intervals for prevalence did not overlap were determined to be significantly different at an alpha level of 0.05. The number of persons aged 0-17 years in 2000 was obtained from the U.S. Census reports (www.census.gov), and was multiplied by the estimated prevalence of future smoking to determine the estimated number of youth who will become regular smokers in each state. The projected number of smoking-attributable deaths was calculated by using the probability of smoking-attributable mortality (PSAM) from the earlier analysis (CDC, 1996). The PSAM is comprised of (a) the percent of persons who had ever smoked at least 100 cigarettes during their lifetime and continued to smoke until one year before their death (55%; CDC, 1996) multiplied by the estimated percent of deaths among continuing smokers (50%; Peto et al, 1994); plus (b) the percent of persons who had ever smoked at least 100 cigarettes during their lifetime and quit smoking prior to one year before their death (45%; CDC, 1996) multiplied by a conservative estimate of smokingattributable deaths among former smokers (10%; CDC unpublished data, 1996). Thus, the probability of smoking-attributable mortality used in this analysis was.32 (PSAM = [(0.55 x 0.5) + (0.45 x 0.1)]). 6
III. Results Overall, the estimated number of future smokers among the cohort of persons who were aged 0-17 years in 2000 was 20,022,241 for the U.S. (range: 25,781 [District of Columbia] to 1,874,940 [California]; see Table). The overall number of potential future smoking-attributable deaths among persons aged 0-17 years in 2000 was 6,407,119 for the U.S. (range: 8,250 [District of Columbia] to 599,981 [California]; see Table). The projected deaths presented here are slightly different than those contained in the recent Tobacco Control State Highlights 2002: Impact and Opportunity (CDC, 2002 a ) which are based on average state-level smoking prevalence data for 1999 and 2000, rather than 2000 alone. The difference between the 2002 CDC estimates and those presented here represents an average difference of 464 projected deaths per state (r =.998, p =.70). The updated analysis shows an increase in projected smoking-related deaths among youth in nearly every state. Change in smoking prevalence among persons 18-30 years was one factor that contributed to the increase in projected smoking-related deaths among youth. Smoking prevalence among young adults increased from 1994-1995 to 2000 in all states except Arizona and Virginia. The increase in smoking prevalence was statistically significant in nine states including Alabama, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont. The change in population of persons 0-17 years also impacted the change in projected smoking-related deaths from 1995 to 2000. The population of persons 0-17 years increased in all states except Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 7
Compared with the 1994-1995 estimates, every state except Arizona shows increases in projected smoking-related deaths for 2000. This upsurge is attributable to both increases in smoking prevalence among young adults and population aged 0-17 years from 1995 to 2000. If current tobacco use patterns persist, it is estimated that 6,407,119 persons in the U.S. who were aged 0-17 years in 2000 will die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. IV. Discussion The upsurge in projected smoking-related deaths among youth is due, in part, to increases in the number of persons aged 0-17 years from 1995 to 2000. However, this increase also is due to the increase in smoking prevalence among young adults in every state over the same time period. In nine states, this increase was statistically significant. With increasing attention and funding for comprehensive, research-based tobacco control programs in the U.S., one would expect smoking rates to decline over time, resulting in a reduction in projected smoking-related deaths among youth. The analysis reported here does not yet reflect this trend. Since youth smoking rates have recently declined (Johnston et al., 2002), it may be a few more years before this trend affects smoking prevalence among young adults (18-30 years). It should be noted, however, that this anticipated decline in young adult smoking may be offset, at least in part, by the tobacco industry s changed marketing practices focused on young adults (Sepe, Ling, & Glantz, 2002). In addition, recent policy changes at state and local levels may simply delay initiation of tobacco use among youth, resulting in an increase in young adult smoking prevalence. 8
The tobacco industry has increased advertising and promotions expenditures since the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (Federal Trade Commission, 2001). There has been a dramatic increase in tobacco industry sponsorship of bars and nightclubs during the 1990s, indicating that the industry is targeting young adults (Sepe et al., 2002). Not only do the bar and nightclub sponsorships reach beginning smokers through peer influence, they also promote smoke-friendly promotional environments and are used for marketing research (Sepe et al., 2002). These targeted marketing efforts are likely to contribute to the greater prevalence of smoking among young adults observed in recent years. The population figures used for the analysis reported here were obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census, while the 1995 analysis was based on population estimates. Compared to the 1995 analysis, the projected death estimates reported here are more accurate since the population data used are more current and based on actual Census data. V. Policy Implications This analysis clearly demonstrates that based on recent smoking patterns, there will continue to be a huge public health toll from tobacco. In 1998, the estimated economic toll from smoking in the U.S. was over $75.5 billion per year in direct medical expenditures (CDC, 2002 b ). In addition, from 1995 to 1999, smoking-attributable productivity losses from premature deaths was estimated at $81.9 billion per year (CDC, 2002 b ). Sustained, well-funded comprehensive tobacco control programs and policies that are effective in reducing youth and young adult smoking will have long-term public health, as well as economic benefits. 9
Effective policy interventions are available that have been shown to reduce youth and young adult smoking including significant tobacco tax increases and funding for comprehensive programs. Tobacco control advocates in many states are increasing their efforts to raise the cigarette excise tax in an attempt to reduce cigarette consumption and promote cessation. A record number of state governments are considering raising the cigarette excise tax as a way to generate revenue. Not only do tax hikes prevent initiation of tobacco use, but increases in the real price of cigarettes also have been shown to prevent young smokers from moving beyond experimentation into regular, addicted smoking (Emery et al., 1999; Emery et al., 2001; Tauras, O Malley, & Johnston, 2001). Increases in price also promote cessation among older smokers, resulting in further reductions in the public health toll from tobacco. There are significant differences across states in the level of tobacco taxes. The average state excise tax on cigarettes in the U.S. in 2001 was $0.42/pack. The tobaccogrowing states tend to have the lowest excise taxes: North Carolina at $0.05/pack; Kentucky at $0.03/pack; and Virginia at $0.025/pack of cigarettes. In contrast, state excise taxes in New York are $1.11 per pack, and those in Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Maine are as high as $1.00/pack, followed by California at $0.87/pack. Tax increases in late 2001 and early 2002 have taken taxes even higher in some states. Voters in Washington State recently overwhelmingly approved an increase of 60 cents per pack, to $1.425, in the state cigarette excise tax. New York s tax rose to $1.50 per pack in April 2002; Connecticut recently passed a $0.61 increase raising the cigarette tax to $1.11, also in April 2002; and Utah s tax is scheduled to increase from 51.5 to 69.5 cents per pack in July 2002. 10
In recent years, several state governments have adopted comprehensive programs to reduce tobacco use, often funded by earmarked tobacco tax revenues. These programs generally have consistent goals for reducing tobacco use including: preventing initiation among youth and young adults; promoting cessation among all smokers; reducing exposure to secondhand smoke; and identifying and eliminating disparities among population subgroups (USDHHS, 2000). In general, these programs have one or more four key components: national and community interventions, counter marketing campaigns, policy and regulation, and surveillance and evaluation. Programs have placed differing emphasis on these four components, with substantial diversity among the types of activities supported within each component. Recent analyses from the U.S. and UK clearly indicate that these comprehensive efforts have been successful in reducing tobacco use and in improving public health (Farrelly, Pechacek, Chaloupka, 2001; Townsend, 1998; USDHHS, 2000; Wakefield & Chaloupka, 2000). In California, for example, the state s comprehensive tobacco control program has doubled the rate of decline in tobacco use seen in the rest of the U.S. (Pierce et al., 1998). California lung cancer incidence has fallen by 14% from 1988 to 1997. In contrast, declines of 2.7% have been seen in other areas of the country (CDC, 2000). Despite strong evidence that comprehensive approaches to tobacco control can effectively reduce smoking, and therefore diminish the social and economic burdens of tobacco use, even the best-funded comprehensive tobacco control programs in the U.S. fall short of optimal funding guidelines for tobacco control. Current estimates of the costs of implementing a comprehensive tobacco control program in the U.S. range from $7 to $20 per capita in smaller states (<$3 million population); $6 to $17 per capita in 11
medium-sized states (3-7 million population); and $5 to $16 per capita in larger states (>7 million population; CDC, 2001). At the highest recommended spending level for the U.S., annual funding for a comprehensive tobacco program would equal only 0.9% of U.S. public spending per capita on health. In summary, it is estimated that nearly 6.5 million deaths from smoking will occur in the current 0-17 year-old cohort in the U.S. The results from this new analysis will be useful to states as they determine the overall public health benefits from increasing the state excise tax and consider funding for comprehensive tobacco control programs. 12
Table. Prevalence of current smoking among adults aged 18-30 years and projected number of persons aged 0-17 who will become smokers and die prematurely as adults because of smoking-related illness, by state United States, 1995 1 and 2000 Prevalence of current smoking among person aged 18-30 years Persons aged 0-17 years Projected deaths from smoking State 1995 2 2000 Number Projected smokers % 95% CI % 95% CI 1995 2000 1995 2000 1995 2000 Alabama* 24.1(+3.4%) 32.3(+4.6%) 1,080,145 1,123,422 260,639 363,315 83,404 116,261 Alaska 29.7(+4.8%) 31.1(+4.4%) 189,253 190,717 56,246 59,294 17,999 18,974 Arizona 25.8(+4.6%) 19.3(+3.4%) 1,193,270 1,366,947 307,864 263,274 98,516 84,248 Arkansas 24.0(+3.5%) 27.3(+3.7%) 649,521 680,369 155,690 186,013 49,821 59,524 California 16.5(+2.0%) 20.3(+2.7%) 8,793,616 9,249,829 1,446,550 1,874,940 462,896 599,981 Colorado 27.7(+3.6%) 26.1(+3.6%) 981,200 1,100,795 271,694 286,977 86,942 91,833 Connecticut 22.0(+3.5%) 28.4(+3.3%) 797,733 841,688 175,501 239,208 56,160 76,547 Delaware 29.0(+3.3%) 30.1(+3.9%) 178,826 194,587 51,806 58,649 16,578 18,768 DC* 13.4(+4.3%) 22.4(+3.8%) 114,652 114,992 15,398 25,781 4,927 8,250 Florida 27.5(+2.8%) 28.7(+2.9%) 3,371,328 3,646,340 928,464 1,045,406 297,108 334,530 Georgia 21.3(+3.0%) 25.8(+3.0%) 1,923,594 2,169,234 409,726 559,879 131,112 179,161 Hawaii 20.9(+3.0%) 25.1(+2.7%) 309,262 295,767 64,574 74,267 20,664 23,765 Idaho 21.9(+3.0%) 25.9(+2.5%) 347,924 369,030 76,230 95,431 24,394 30,538 Illinois 26.0(+3.2%) 28.4(+3.2%) 3,125,894 3,245,451 813,670 920,734 260,374 294,635 Indiana 30.0(+3.1%) 35.0(+3.9%) 1,487,359 1,574,396 439,515 550,409 140,645 176,131 Iowa* 23.1(+2.7%) 34.3(+3.7%) 724,511 733,638 167,507 251,491 53,602 80,477 Kansas 22.2(+3.5%) 24.5(+2.8%) 692,761 712,993 153,862 174,755 49,236 55,922 Kentucky* 28.2(+3.3%) 37.8(+2.8%) 972,708 994,818 274,693 376,041 87,902 120,333 Louisiana 26.7(+3.5%) 28.6(+2.7%) 1,239,214 1,219,799 331,366 349,106 106,037 111,714 Maine 32.0(+4.9%) 36.0(+3.6%) 304,895 301,238 97,536 108,566 31,211 34,741 Maryland 21.1(+2.0%) 25.0(+2.9%) 1,271,966 1,356,172 267,876 338,365 85,720 108,277 Massachusetts 23.1(+3.4%) 26.7(+2.1%) 1,431,854 1,500,064 330,186 399,767 105,659 127,925 Michigan 28.6(+3.1%) 31.4(+4.0%) 2,519,455 2,595,767 721,572 816,109 230,903 261,155 Minnesota 24.3(+2.2%) 27.7(+3.6%) 1,245,492 1,286,894 303,153 355,955 97,009 113,906 Mississippi 20.0(+3.5%) 26.0(+4.1%) 761,909 775,187 152,610 201,316 48,835 64,421 Missouri 26.9(+4.3%) 31.9(+3.2%) 1,381,552 1,427,692 372,052 454,863 119,057 145,556 Montana 19.9(+4.3%) 22.9(+3.8%) 236,134 230,062 47,014 52,569 15,045 16,822 Nebraska 25.0(+3.6%) 30.1(+3.7%) 443,297 450,242 110,913 135,433 35,492 43,339 Nevada* 24.8(+3.4%) 35.3(+4.4%) 398,586 511,799 98,770 180,716 31,606 57,829 New Hampshire 25.2(+4.0%) 34.1(+5.6%) 294,969 309,562 74,303 105,684 23,777 33,819 New Jersey 21.6(+3.8%) 24.4(+3.3%) 1,963,523 2,087,558 423,728 508,320 135,593 162,662 New Mexico 20.9(+4.1%) 28.7(+3.7%) 500,099 508,574 104,271 146,062 33,367 46,740 New York 26.0(+3.1%) 30.1(+3.4%) 4,536,862 4,690,107 1,179,584 1,411,253 377,467 451,601 North Carolina 28.8(+3.0%) 34.3(+3.8%) 1,799,119 1,964,047 517,786 672,883 165,692 215,323 13
North Dakota* 22.5(+3.2%) 31.6(+4.5%) 170,445 160,849 38,350 50,748 12,272 16,239 Ohio 31.2(+4.6%) 33.3(+3.6%) 2,859,848 2,888,339 891,129 962,972 285,161 308,151 Oklahoma 22.7(+5.2%) 26.6(+3.2%) 878,039 892,360 199,490 237,457 63,837 75,986 Oregon 24.1(+2.9%) 26.7(+3.1%) 797,040 846,526 191,688 225,768 61,340 72,246 Pennsylvania 29.5(+2.9%) 32.9(+3.8%) 2,909,302 2,922,221 857,371 961,411 274,359 307,652 Rhode Island 30.9(+5.9%) 32.0(+3.7%) 237,611 247,822 73,446 79,303 23,503 25,377 South Carolina* 22.0(+3.0%) 30.1(+3.4%) 944,384 1,009,641 208,142 304,205 66,606 97,346 South Dakota* 22.1(+3.3%) 29.1(+3.0%) 206,436 202,649 45,705 58,971 14,626 18,871 Tennessee 25.1(+2.9%) 29.1(+3.7%) 1,310,297 1,398,521 329,147 406,830 105,327 130,186 Texas 21.5(+3.6%) 24.9(+2.4%) 5,400,417 5,886,759 1,158,389 1,465,214 370,685 468,868 Utah 16.1(+2.5%) 16.7(+2.6%) 674,618 718,698 108,883 120,166 34,843 38,453 Vermont* 26.3(+3.4%) 34.0(+3.7%) 146,760 147,523 38,613 50,173 12,356 16,055 Virginia 26.3(+3.5%) 25.5(+4.4%) 1,612,527 1,738,262 423,288 443,257 135,452 141,842 Washington 23.8(+2.5%) 26.7(+3.2%) 1,418,404 1,513,843 336,871 403,591 107,799 129,149 West Virginia 28.6(+3.3%) 30.2(+4.3%) 421,868 402,393 120,443 121,482 38,542 38,874 Wisconsin 27.0(+3.8%) 32.8(+4.2%) 1,353,205 1,368,756 365,907 449,226 117,090 143,752 Wyoming 23.2(+4.3%) 30.0(+4.2%) 136,268 128,873 31,669 38,636 10,134 12,364 United States NA NA NA NA68,739,95272,293,81216,620,88020,022,2415,318,6826,407,119 *Statistically significant increase in smoking prevalence among young adults from 1995 to 2000 at an alpha level of 0.05. 1 1995 figures from MMWR, 45(44), November 8, 1996. 2 Smoking prevalence data for persons aged 18-30 years were pooled for 1994 and 1995, except for Rhode Island (1995 only) and the District of Columbia (1994 only). Note. The number of projected smoking-related deaths for 2000 are slightly different than those presented in Tobacco Control State Highlights 2002: Impact and Opportunity (CDC, 2002). The 2002 CDC analysis pooled young adult smoking prevalence for 1999 and 2000. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life list United States, 1990. MMWR 1993;42:645-649. 14
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Projected smoking-related deaths among youth United States. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, November 8, 1996. MMWR 1996;45(44):971-974. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Declines in lung cancer rates--california, 1988-1997. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2000;49(47):1066-9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Investment in tobacco control: State highlights 2001. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. a Tobacco control state highlights 2002: Impact and opportunity. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2002. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. b Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs United States, 1995-1999. MMWR 2002;51(14):300-303. Emery SL, White MM, Pierce JP. Does cigarette price influence adolescent experimentation? Journal of Health Economics 2001;20(2):261-70. Emery SL, Gilpin EA, White MM, Pierce JP. How adolescents get their cigarettes: implications for policies on access and price. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999;91(2):184-86. Farrelly, MC, Pechacek, TF, Chaloupka, FJ. The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on aggregate cigarette sales: 1981-1998. National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2001. NBER Working Paper No. w8691. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 1999. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 2001. Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (2002). The Monitoring the Future national survey results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2001 (NIH Publication No. 02-5105). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, c. 61 pp. Miller, VP, Ernst, C, Collin, F. Smoking-attributable medical care costs in the USA. Social Science Medicine 1999:48:375-391. Miller LS, Zhang X, Rice DP, Max, W. State estimates of total medical expenditures attributable to cigarette smoking, 1993. Public Health Reports 1998;113:447-458. 15
Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, et al. Mortality from smoking in developed countries, 1950-2000: Indirect estimates from national vital statistics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, Emery SL, Farkas AJ, Zhu SH, Choi W, et al. Tobacco Control in California: Who's Winning the War? An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989-1996. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego; 1998. Sepe, E, Ling, PM, Glantz, SA. Smooth moves: Bar and nightclub tobacco promotions that target young adults. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:414-419. Tauras JA, O Malley, PM, Johnston, LD. Effects of price and access laws on teenage smoking initiation: A National longitudinal analysis. ImpacTeen and YES! April 2001. Research Paper Series, No. 2 (available from www.impacteen.org). Townsend JL. UK smoking targets: Policies to attain them and effects on premature mortality. In: Abedian I, van der Merwe R, Wilins N, Jha P, editors. The Economics of Tobacco Control: Toward an Optimal Policy Mix. Cape Town, SA: Applied Fiscal Research Centre, University of Cape Town; 1998. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2000. Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programs in reducing teenage smoking in the United States. Tob Control 2000;9(2):177-86. 16
Recent ImpacTeen and YES! Research Papers Effects of Price and Access Laws on Teenage Smoking Initiation: A National Longitudinal Analysis, Tauras JA, O Malley PM, Johnston LD, April 2001. Marijuana and Youth, Pacula R, Grossman M, Chaloupka F, O Malley P, Johnston L, Farrelly M, October 2000. Recent ImpacTeen Research Papers Projected Smoking-Related Deaths Among U.S. Youth: A 2000 Update, Hahn EJ, Rayens MK, Chaloupka FJ, Okoli CTC, Yan J, May 2002. Coding the News: The Development of a Methodological Framework for Coding and Analyzing Newspaper Coverage on Tobacco Issues, Clegg Smith K, Wakefield M, Siebel C, Szczypka G, Slater S, Terry-McElrath Y, Emery S, Chaloupka F, May 2002. Binge Drinking and Violence among College Students: Sensitivity to Correlation in the Unobservables, Powell LM, Ciecierski C, Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H, February 2002. Study Habits and the Level of Alcohol Use Among College Students, Powell LM, Williams J, Wechsler H, February 2002. Does Alcohol Consumption Reduce Human Capital Accumulation? Evidence from the College Alcohol Study, Williams J, Powell LM, Wechsler H, February 2002. Habit and Heterogeneity in College Students Demand for Alcohol, Williams J, January 2002. Are There Differential Effects of Price and Policy on College Students Drinking Intensity? Williams J, Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H, January 2002. Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among College Students: Economic Complements or Substitutes? Williams J, Pacula RL, Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H, November 2001. The Drugs-Crime Wars: Past, Present and Future Directions in Theory, Policy and Program Interventions, McBride DC, VanderWaal CJ, Terry-McElrath, November 2001. State Medical Marijuana Laws: Understanding the Laws and their Limitations, Pacula RL, Chriqui JF, Reichmann D, Terry-McElrath YM, October 2001. The Impact of Prices and Control Policies on Cigarette Smoking among College Students, Czart C, Pacula RL, Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H, March 2001. Youth Smoking Uptake Progress: Price and Public Policy Effects, Ross H, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M, February 2001. Adolescent Patterns for Acquisition and Consumption of Alcohol, Tobacco and Illicit Drugs: A Qualitative Study, Slater S, Balch G, Wakefield M, Chaloupka F, February 2001. State Variation in Retail Promotions and Advertising for Marlboro Cigarettes, Slater S, Chlaoupka FJ, Wakefield M, February 2001 For these and other papers in the series, please visit www.impacteen.org
ImpacTeen Coordinating Center University of Illinois at Chicago Frank Chaloupka, PhD www.uic.edu/orgs/impacteen Health Research and Policy Centers 850 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 400 (M/C 275) Chicago, Illinois 60607 312.413.0475 phone 312.355.2801 fax State Alcohol Research University of Minnesota Alexander Wagenaar, PhD www.epl.umn.edu/alcohol State Tobacco Research Roswell Park Cancer Institute Gary Giovino, PhD www.roswellpark.org State Illicit Drug Research Andrews University Duane McBride, PhD www.andrews.edu